Those who are interested in science do not feel the need to refute anything.

A lot of Science is about refuting or supporting colleagues' research. Some of the controversies in science like Continental Drift and the years of controversies of CD lead to bitter rivalries lasting years of published papers being challenged and refuted. That's kind of how SCIENCE is conducted. Another example is found in the extinction of dinosaurs controversy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

They let the facts speak for themselves.

When you present SCIENTIFIC FACTS, then they will speak for themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Thus far, all the facts I've seen lead me to one conclusion: the science of climate change and to what extent humans are impacting it is NOT SETTLED.

If what you have posted are" facts" leading you to your conclusion, then sorry your conclusions are wrong, because the "facts" you have presented are not based upon SCIENCE but are misinterpretations the SCIENCE in the cited by your blog links.

I'll agree that the SCIENCE isn't fully settled---but the evidence is heavily weighed to AGW.----check out some what I have posted and keep away from the bloggers. Go to Science or Nature for more credible facts and SCIENCE. YOu might also want to check out the AMS site on Climate Change.

Quote:

"Be not astonished at new ideas; for it is well known to you that a thing does not therefore cease to be true because it is not accepted by many."

Benedictus de Spinoza

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

WASHINGTONAccording to a report released this week by the Center for Global Development, climate change, the popular mid-2000s issue that raised awareness of the fact that the earth's continuous rise in temperature will have catastrophic ecological effects, has apparently not been resolved, and may still be a problem......

"Global warming, if you remember correctly, was the single greatest problem of our lifetime back in 2007 and the early part of 2008," CGD president Nancy Birdsall said. "But then the debates over Social Security reform and the World Trade Center mosque came up, and the government had to shift its focus away from the dramatic rise in sea levels, the rapid spread of deadly infectious diseases, and the imminent destruction of our entire planet."........

Thus far, the study has gained unanimous favor in the scientific community, which was admittedly surprised in 2008 and 2009 at how quickly a defining issue that will undoubtedly affect everyone on the planet became so heavily politicized and took a backseat to health care reform, the housing bubble, and replacing Jay Leno on The Tonight Show.

"Climate change is real, and we are killing our planet more every day," said climatologist Helen Marcus, who has made similar statements in interviews in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. "We need to make a serious effort to stop it, or, you know, we'll all die. There really isn't much else to say."

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

I assure you I have read all the links you posted. I have just arrived at a different conclusion than you.

Yeah, I expected that, I guess it's my fault expecting that you would actually comprehend the SCIENCE in the postings. You've been reading and putting too much faith in bloggers far too long to understand the SCIENCE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

I am not a scientist, but I have always considered the words "scientist" and "skeptic" to be synonymous.

You're confused about scientist, skeptics and denier. The case is scientist>skeptic ≠ skeptic>scientist. Not all skeptics are scientist. Scientist are by nature skeptics, they develop a hypothesis, perform experiments and observations and examine the results. If the data doesn't support the hypothesis then it is wrong. Skeptics may not believe in science and will deny anything is true if it is contrary to their beliefs, even if the evidence proves otherwise. But a skeptic may be swayed by the facts and evidences eventually---if not then they are deniers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Or maybe I can just keep posting links to relevant information in this thread and you can ignore them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

You seem to find the concept of a forum problematic.
If you look on the previous page, you will see that you post twelve links in separate posts to climate denial blogs.
Fine Tunes debunks several.
And you ignore him. I think you spend two or three posts on him, and only one is longer than a single line.
Youre not interested in discussion. We can tell this because you dont defend any of your posts.
If youre not interested in what people have to say, I think a blog would be better for you, and you could stop bumping this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

Can't help but notice that jazzguru didn't bother to respond to your posts, again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

So true. He isn't looking for conversation anywhere. Challenge his beliefs? He puts his head in the sand. He's not worth talking to.

First the problem is that the links to "relevant information" is not relevant since is refuted and made irrelevant---but you fail to see it.

scientist>skeptic ≠ skeptic>scientist.

The key word is relevant. Most of your sources are faulty blogger denier's sites that have nothing to do with science. You have ignored any challenges about the validity of your postings which means that you cannot support your position that AGW is real. I cannot ignore your postings because others reading them may actually believe them to be fact, when in reality they are based upon pseudo science or draw contrary conclusions from the cited papers without any foundation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Nice. Note the use of the word "deniers" instead of "skeptics". Deniers, of course, has the same connotation as "holocaust deniers".

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

That's the huge fallacy that we have in this nation. You can't just bring on a dissenting opinion and automatically give it the same weight because it's from the "other side"--not when that dissenting opinion comes from one that lacks knowledge, ethics, credibility, or all of the above. This whole notion that everyone's opinion somehow has merit is utter bullshit.

You continue to post links from people that have been proven time and time again to distort the actual picture of what's going. They use faulty math, logic, and science to advance an agenda. Their fallacious reasoning has been debunked numerous times, yet because they are from the "other side," you somehow decide that they still must receive equal weight. I'm sorry, they don't.

It makes no fucking sense whatsoever. There is no big conspiracy. You don't understand the science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Science is about questioning the dogma. Questioning the status quo. Questioning the consensus. Right now, you and other adherents of the AGW religion seem to think a perceived consensus means no questions should be allowed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

It's clear who the real "deniers" are, here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

I welcome and encourage science. Unfortunately the green movement has very little to do with science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Hi Wormhole!

The science should speak for itself. And I'm listening. To all of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Declaring victory before the battle is over, eh? Go right ahead. I'm not going away. And neither are those who continue to question the status quo...unless our rights to do so are forcibly removed from us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

Jazzy, you do realize though that spreading your ridiculous lies from your dubious sources completely runs counter to your goals of going green.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

I'll stop posting in this thread as soon as the science is settled.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

But that means you need to learn what science is first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

Jg, most of what you have posted before your trip and after have been challenged. You have not responded to the challenges by refuting the evidence that was provided to refute your postings. You have not tried to refute or challenge what I have posted. Rather than posting more material from the same old sites, try to explain what has been challenged and challenge or refute what I've posted. Here is some of what has gone unchallenged:

I encourage you to challenge the originators of the content. I am merely providing links to their content for convenience.
Trying to refute their claims here is pretty pointless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

I'm not posting links to relevant information in here for you. You've already made up your mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

The problem is that the information you are posting is not relevant nor is it fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

The problem is that you are not interested in science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

Actually I'm interested in science. I used SCIENCE to refute your bloggers. You have yet to respond to the links I provided to show that there is strong SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE based upon SCIENCE and FACTS that the crap you posted is bogus---where's your SCIENCE?

When you learn the difference between science and blogger's pseudo science, post---otherwise your postings here are no longer credible. If you think they are then defend them, otherwise the DENIER'S label is appropriate.

Yeah, I expected that, I guess it's my fault expecting that you would actually comprehend the SCIENCE in the postings. You've been reading and putting too much faith in bloggers far too long to understand the SCIENCE.[/URL][/SIZE][/B]

It's exactly this attitude among the American Left that caused them to get obliterated in the mid-term elections.

You believe anyone who sees the same information you do but doesn't arrive at the same conclusions you do is stupid, misinformed, and/or ignorant.

Obama is telling us that we didn't vote for him and the Democrats in the mid-terms because we didn't understand their message. In short, he thinks we are stupid, misinformed, and/or ignorant.

Persist in this attitude, FT, and you will soon have a startling and likely unpleasant run-in with reality somewhere down the line, just as the Democrats did earlier this month.

For fun we should just insinuate that because FT disagrees with you, he is totally uninformed on the matter and clearly is ignoring everything you've posted.

I mean we've clearly got proof this is true because darn it, he still disagrees!

Obviously if he knew what you knew, he would do what you do, and likewise think what you think.

When you've got "the one true answer" all dissention and opposition is impossible.

tm, you fail to see that most of what jg has posted has been refuted as being wrong. jg has failed to support any of his/her postings/arguements. Instead of standing for what is he/she has posted, jg goes back to the same denier's blogger sites and finds more crap.

It's exactly this attitude among the American Left that caused them to get obliterated in the mid-term elections.

False accusations--ad hominem attack. My politics aren't from the left---if it really matters. How I voted is of not your concern---we live in what I think is a free country?--so how I voted is not an issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

You believe anyone who sees the same information you do but doesn't arrive at the same conclusions you do is stupid, misinformed, and/or ignorant.

When you keep going to the same blogger denier sites and post crap, what is one to think? You don't even defend what you have posted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Obama is telling us that we didn't vote for him and the Democrats in the mid-terms because we didn't understand their message. In short, he thinks we are stupid, misinformed, and/or ignorant.

Persist in this attitude, FT, and you will soon have a startling and likely unpleasant run-in with reality somewhere down the line, just as the Democrats did earlier this month.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

tm, you fail to see that most of what jg has posted has been refuted as being wrong. jg has failed to support any of his/her postings/arguements. Instead of standing for what is he/she has posted, jg goes back to the same denier's blogger sites and finds more crap.

False accusations--ad hominem attack. My politics aren't from the left---if it really matters. How I voted is of not your concern---we live in what I think is a free country?--so how I voted is not an issue.

I don't believe I mentioned anything about your own political beliefs or how you voted. I compared your attitude with that of the Democrats.

Quote:

When you keep going to the same blogger denier sites and post crap, what is one to think? You don't even defend what you have posted.

I don't presume to tell anyone what they should think. I prefer to provide links to information I feel is related to the climate change question, offer occasional commentary, and let people decide for themselves.

The facts should speak for themselves, should they not?

Yet you proceed to try to "refute" or "debunk" the information in the links and challenge me as if I am the author of the content.

Why don't you challenge the creators of the content directly?

Furthermore, why do you feel the need to challenge anything and everything that could possibly contradict established AGW dogma?

Keep throwing down the gauntlet. I have no intention of playing your silly game.

And what was the mechanism by which "Al Gore" manipulated the entire apparatus of agreed upon science to falsify vast amounts of data across decades of research in order to line his pockets? Since we're "following the money" and all.

And what was the mechanism by which "Al Gore" manipulated the entire apparatus of agreed upon science to falsify vast amounts of data across decades of research in order to line his pockets? Since we're "following the money" and all.

I guess you're new, don't expect an answer any time soon. Maybe if you're lucky jg will post a link to something totally irrelevant and off point.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

And what was the mechanism by which "Al Gore" manipulated the entire apparatus of agreed upon science to falsify vast amounts of data across decades of research in order to line his pockets? Since we're "following the money" and all.

For years, free-market fundamentalists opposed to government regulation have sought to create doubt in the publics mind about the dangers of smoking, acid rain, and ozone depletion. Now they have turned those same tactics on the issue of global warming and on climate scientists, with significant success.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

I don't presume to tell anyone what they should think. I prefer to provide links to information I feel is related to the climate change question, offer occasional commentary, and let people decide for themselves.

The facts should speak for themselves, should they not?

I have nothing against your right to provide information to the readers of this thread. What I oppose is that the information that you provide is most often not true and not based on science. You are presenting only one side of the argument from the same sources. When you keep going to the blogger denier sites, you keep the misinformation flowing. I have pointed out on several occasions where your posted articles were based upon misinformation, misquotes, incorrectly drawing conclusions from the cited articles that are't the author's conclusions, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Yet you proceed to try to "refute" or "debunk" the information in the links and challenge me as if I am the author of the content.

You are the messenger and I have pointed out the fallacies of the message that you are conveying. You have the responsibility to convey the truth. If you can't support the message, don't post it. An example of how I challenge your posting:

I have mostly attacked the articles that you posted, but sometimes it is best to shoot the messenger. It is the messenger that keeps posting the pseudo science. I have only challenged you to defend what you post since you continue to use the faulty and biased sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Furthermore, why do you feel the need to challenge anything and everything that could possibly contradict established AGW dogma?

First, AGW is not dogma. A part of science is to challenge opposing points of view. Just as you believe that you must challenge AGW, I feel that I should support it. If you post misinformation or articles based on poor science, it should be challenged as in other threads where you support one position, someone has the right to challenge you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Keep throwing down the gauntlet. I have no intention of playing your silly game.

This is not a silly game. I have refuted what you have posted and only challenged you to do the same or at least defend what you post. If you can't support your postings, or if you don't believe in them you are being disingenuous to the readers and commenters of this thread. This is a forum after all.

Forum def: A medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper, a radio or television program, or a website.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

This is not a silly game. I have refuted what you have posted and only challenged you to do the same or at least defend what you post. If you can't support your postings, or if you don't believe in them you are being disingenuous to the readers and commenters of this thread. This is a forum after all.

Forum def: A medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper, a radio or television program, or a website.

Apparently you fail to understand that open means open and not FT declared he was right and that all JG's stuff was wrong and thus discussion is now over.

Saying he's a liar aka disingenuous just because you disagree with him isn't open discussion. It is an attack. Open means put it all out there and let the people decide for themselves.

tm, you fail to see that most of what jg has posted has been refuted as being wrong. jg has failed to support any of his/her postings/arguements. Instead of standing for what is he/she has posted, jg goes back to the same denier's blogger sites and finds more crap.

As others have pointed out in other threads, you don't answer questions. How am I making ridiculous demands on jg? Only asking that jg to support his/her argument.

Who has come to the thread to confront me----err who's the troll---tm of course!!!

First global climate prediction is a proto-science at best. Anyone who claims they have THE truth or THE answer is akin to a religious fanatic because these models, and that is what all the claims are based on are deeply flawed, subject to frequent revision and often rely on proxies that may or may not be accurate for past history or future predictions.

JG fully supports his views. He links to information. He cites sources. He provides quotes, graphs, you name it.

The definition of support with regard to an argument is not that which manages to convince you, especially convince you against your will, that you are wrong.

The reverse is true as well.

FT, you should be old and wise enough to understand these points by now. When you go into a court both sides present a case. Both sides provide a narrative of what happened, present evidence, ask questions they hope to get answers they like to, etc. In the end a judge decides. Well in these open forums, the readers decide for themselves. About 5% of them register and post, but fully 90%+ percent of them are guests aka lurkers. You don't have to convince JG. You can convince them. If someone feels passionate about what you've shared, they'll register and add to the discussion. If not, then harassing and spamming isn't going to convince them and it is going to turn many people off to what you have to say.

If this were real life, if it were your work place, a coffee house, a university class, would you be allowed to talk over everyone and stick your papers that you believe prove your point in their faces repeatedly? It wouldn't fly. A monologue isn't a dialog. Likewise spewing the same dozen points ore stridently each time (bigger fonts, more colors, more smilies and pics) won't change the nature of what you are doing. Stop harassing people. Present information and move on.

I'm of the view that links (JG and FT) alone don't compel someone to read. Likewise five pages doesn't compel someone to read. Pick an interesting paragraph to quote and see if you can hook and reel someone in to read your information. Sharing some small bit about why you think it is important to understand helps too.

I'm of the view that links (JG and FT) alone don't compel someone to read. Likewise five pages doesn't compel someone to read. Pick an interesting paragraph to quote and see if you can hook and reel someone in to read your information. Sharing some small bit about why you think it is important to understand helps too.

I guess the reason I don't quote passages from the links I post or comment on them much is because I'd rather let people read for themselves and arrive at their own conclusions without me picking and choosing what I think they should read.

I personally find long quotes with passages enlarged, in bold or underlined more annoying than helpful. Just let me click on the link and read.

But I suppose more people are prone to ignore a single link with no quote altogether or just skim the content of the link rather than truly read it, so I can see where quoting a paragraph or three might at least get people to read something.

Apparently you fail to understand that open means open and not FT declared he was right and that all JG's stuff was wrong and thus discussion is now over.

You haven't been reading what's here, have you? Besides your mischaracterization what's happen, you failed to mentioned that I have asked jg to discuss the issues. jg refuses to respond and support what he/she has posted. I thought this was a discussion. No where in this thread have I declared that I'm right, jg's wrong and thus the discussion is over---nice try tm......point fingers and obfuscate the issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

Saying he's a liar aka disingenuous just because you disagree with him isn't open discussion. It is an attack.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

This is not a silly game. I have refuted what you have posted and only challenged you to do the same or at least defend what you post. If you can't support your postings, or if you don't believe in them you are being disingenuous to the readers and commenters of this thread. This is a forum after all.

I stand by that statement, however you mischaracterize my usage of the word.

as opposed to lie
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

jg did not lie since jg was not the one who made the statements in the links. jg is not being sincere, not being candid, or not being ingenuous by continuing to refuse to discuss or support his/her position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

Open means put it all out there and let the people decide for themselves.

Oh, then what you and jg in other post are wrong when it was said

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

Also it is a DISCUSSION forum. Add something from you buddy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

Yes but as you've noticed, I put some captions I've written with the pictures. Thus there is no need for the reader to infer my intent and then have me get off on telling them they inferred wrong and thus suck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

Help me.
It is not just an empty post full of links, pictures, and quotes with no conclusions.
I've not encountered this before. I'm not sure how to proceed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

I knew the moment I posted that comic with no comment or caption that FT would make a big deal out of it.

and others are wrong to insist that just posting links as jg has done without comments or defending them when challenged is OK?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

This is not your blog. This is a forum. If you want a climate denier aggregator, start your own climate denier aggregator and stop bumping this thread with horsehit from climate denial blogs. Fine Tunes debunks it and you ignore him again and again, so you don't want to discuss, you just want to post, so you should start a blog. That's what you should do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

You seem to find the concept of a forum problematic.
If you look on the previous page, you will see that you post twelve links in separate posts to climate denial blogs.
Fine Tunes debunks several.
And you ignore him. I think you spend two or three posts on him, and only one is longer than a single line.

So what you really should do is start a blog. Start a climate denial blog, and turn the comments off. Youre not interested in discussion. We can tell this because you dont defend any of your posts.

Start a blog. Turn the comments off. A forum has a reply button so people can engage in debate with you. If youre not interested in what people have to say, I think a blog would be better for you, and you could stop bumping this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Or maybe I can just keep posting links to relevant information in this thread and you can ignore them.

That's the huge fallacy that we have in this nation. You can't just bring on a dissenting opinion and automatically give it the same weight because it's from the "other side"--not when that dissenting opinion comes from one that lacks knowledge, ethics, credibility, or all of the above. This whole notion that everyone's opinion somehow has merit is utter bullshit.

You continue to post links from people that have been proven time and time again to distort the actual picture of what's going. They use faulty math, logic, and science to advance an agenda. Their fallacious reasoning has been debunked numerous times, yet because they are from the "other side," you somehow decide that they still must receive equal weight. I'm sorry, they don't.

So it's alright not to insist that jg defend his/her position or point of view even when several members have asked for an explanation? If what you expect is post links fine with me, but lets be fair about your criticisms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

It's quite rude to demand of others what you don't demand of yourself.

I am willing to support what I've posted, just ask that jg do the same.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

JG fully supports his views. He links to information. He cites sources. He provides quotes, graphs, you name it.
The definition of support with regard to an argument is not that which manages to convince you, especially convince you against your will, that you are wrong.

That's the main issue that I have raised with jg. jg just post links and does not comment on them, nor does jg defend or support the articles he/she posts. I gather that jg, when he/she post links, that it supports what jg believes to be true and it supports his/her position. When I have challenged jg's post, jg's only response is to post another link to an article that has nothing to do with the issue I have raised.

I guess you agree with this premise that you need only to post links without comments:

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

Open means put it all out there and let the people decide for themselves.

but as I see below, you now agree that you should at least have a paragraph summary. This is fine, and I have made an effort to shorten the length of quotes from the articles I present, I only ask that jg do likewise and support what he/she has posted when it is questioned/challenged.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

First global climate prediction is a proto-science at best. Anyone who claims they have THE truth or THE answer is akin to a religious fanatic because these models, and that is what all the claims are based on are deeply flawed, subject to frequent revision and often rely on proxies that may or may not be accurate for past history or future predictions......

I think that the characterization of global climate prediction is an over simplification of Global Warming.
def protoscience: a set of beliefs or theories that have not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method but which are otherwise consistent with existing science; a new science working to establish itself as legitimate science.

Global Warming is occurring. There is more evidence to support this and only the impacts of AGW are not fully accessed or understood. Modeling is getting betternot perfect as you know there are many variables, however the fact is as my previously posted links support Global Warming is a fact.

Although the specific predictions of climate change are derived from models, the reasons for expecting significant global warming in the near future comes from a much deeper foundation that includes laboratory and field experiments, well-established knowledge of atmospheric behavior, and measurements that include worldwide monitoring of atmospheric conditions....

Predictions of future climate are imperfect because they are limited by significant uncertainties that stem from: (1) the natural variability of climate; (2) our inability to predict accurately future greenhouse-gas and aerosol emissions; (3) the potential for unpredicted or unrecognized factors, such as volcanic eruptions or new or unknown human influences, to perturb atmospheric conditions; and (4) our as-yet incomplete understanding of the total climate system. The reliability of climate-model predictions depends directly upon each of these.

Virtually Certain:
(1) The temperature of the stratosphere--an upper region of the atmosphere that extends from about ten to fifty kilometers (six to thirty miles) above the surface of the Earth--will be significantly cooled.

Very Probable:
(2) The surface temperature of the Earth will continue to rise through at least the middle of the 21st century.
(3) Higher surface temperatures will cause an increase in the average precipitation over the globe.
(4) The amount of sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere will be diminished.
(5) Land areas in the Arctic should experience amplified wintertime warming .
(6) Global warming will cause sea level to rise.
(7) The climatic effect of any changes expected in the amount of energy radiated from the Sun in the course of the next fifty years is much smaller than that from increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Long answer in two parts.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

FT, you should be old and wise enough to understand these points by now. When you go into a court both sides present a case. Both sides provide a narrative of what happened, present evidence, ask questions they hope to get answers they like to, etc. In the end a judge decides. Well in these open forums, the readers decide for themselves. About 5% of them register and post, but fully 90%+ percent of them are guests aka lurkers. You don't have to convince JG. You can convince them. If someone feels passionate about what you've shared, they'll register and add to the discussion. If not, then harassing and spamming isn't going to convince them and it is going to turn many people off to what you have to say.

If this were real life, if it were your work place, a coffee house, a university class, would you be allowed to talk over everyone and stick your papers that you believe prove your point in their faces repeatedly? It wouldn't fly. A monologue isn't a dialog. Likewise spewing the same dozen points ore stridently each time (bigger fonts, more colors, more smilies and pics) won't change the nature of what you are doing. Stop harassing people. Present information and move on.

I'm of the view that links (JG and FT) alone don't compel someone to read. Likewise five pages doesn't compel someone to read. Pick an interesting paragraph to quote and see if you can hook and reel someone in to read your information. Sharing some small bit about why you think it is important to understand helps too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

tm, you fail to see that most of what jg has posted has been refuted as being wrong. jg has failed to support any of his/her postings/arguements. Instead of standing for what is he/she has posted, jg goes back to the same denier's blogger sites and finds more crap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

As others have pointed out in other threads, you don't answer questions. How am I making ridiculous demands on jg? Only asking that jg to support his/her argument.
Who has come to the thread to confront me----err who's the troll---tm of course!!!

I had to review what you referred to as my quote. I have included what is actually two quotes. The first does list previous post where I have refuted jg's linked articles and ask that jg respond to defend or support the linked articles.

Your court analogy is a good one. Since jg is the originator of this thread, lets call him/her the plaintiff. The plaintiff has the burden of proof that the case has merit and is sustainable to a favorable disposition to plaintiff. The plaintiff must convince the jury that he's right and should prevail. jg's case is either that AGW is wrong, or that the evidence/science supporting it is flawed. Most of the evidence that jg presented to support his/her case has been refuted. It is up to jg to either support his/her evidenceto convince the judge the facts/evidence is not refutablethat jg has more to support the evidence. You challenge defendants case by showing that what they have presented either as an argument against your evidence and facts are sh!t and/or what they present as fact and as evidence is sh!t.

As I pointed to jg, the sites that he/she keeps going to are blogger denier sites. If the articles that they continually post are refutable by being misinterpretation of or misquoting the author's conclusions then the site itself as a source becomes questionable. Move on and find a better site.

Rather than argue against what the defendant has presented and argued, jg goes and links to more articles which have nothing to do with the issues that have raised. You have to convince the jury of your case. You have to convince the judge that your facts are sound.

jg has presented a poor case and based upon the facts, evidence and science presented by the defendant, defendant should prevail----oh....sorry...got carried away.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

I've stated what I think is most persuasive. Yet I'll take a post full of ten links right now over what you usually do and at least you aren't harassing and stalking anyone.

I say have at it!

Just pointing out that posting links and not commenting on them or supporting them when challenged makes little sense. If you follow most of my other post in this thread, I do comment. I will as per your suggestion, shorten my quotes.

As I have commented in the above, jg needs to step up and support the links je/she post when it questioned.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey